Touchstone Modified

Edited the title because I've calmed down a bit.

I am fully prepared to be in the wrong here--

I went up the first couple pitches of Touchstone yesterday to help a friend learn how to aid climb--someone has monkeyed up the second pitch. It's no longer C2--and it was already barely C2. 

Changes I noticed: 

1. There is now a glue-in in the middle of the C1 cracks on P1 (which previously required a reachy move between C1 placements or a single marginal placement).

2. The cracked pin is gone--in its place is a glued angle with a 6 inch smear of glue in the scar--see picture.

3. The first placement above the pin has been enhanced--what used to be a marginal orange totem or a tricam is now a textbook orange totem. A C4 might have also worked in the new pod, but I didn't have one on me. This one may have naturally weathered open a little, but it's certainly suspect. See picture.

4. Another placement has been chiseled out above this one--this used to be a marginal offset cam, nut, or tricam OR a high step reach to the red cam placement that marked the end of the 8 whole feet of C2 on this entire climb. This is now a chiseled slot that perfectly holds a nut and probably could hold a small cam. See picture.

5. The drilled pin anchors have been replaced with glue in bolts up to P6 (we descended after P2, but a friend had gone up the day before). This one might be considered more justifiable, but I found the pin anchors to be part of the appeal of the route.

Changes I can't swear to--

6. There's a bolt low on the "sport pitch." I don't remember there being a bolt there, only pitons, but I could be misremembering. If a bolt has been added, I don't know if it was in addition to or in place of one of the pins.

7. There seemed to be one too many bolts on the P2 traverse before the bolt--I didn't pay enough attention to that until I saw the modifications to the crux, but there was a glue-in ~12 inches below a pin halfway through the traverse, which struck me as odd whilst leading.

8. This may be my paranoia setting in, but looking up from the P2 anchors, I thought there was what looked like some hammer marks in and around the crack heading up--again, I fully admit that this point may be off-base.

Now, I'm totally willing to be told I'm wrong about this. I am not the most experienced wall climber--though I have rope soloed touchstone twice, most recently last fall--along with most of the other trade routes in Zion and a handful of walls in Yosemite), nor am I local to Zion (though I'd reckon Vegas is "more local" to Zion than MOST who climb there): the modifications to P1 and P2 seem egregious and needless.

The new bolt on P1 is laughable. The aid there is not particularly hard and the fall would be clean and low consequence, relatively speaking. Same for the changes on P2--while that section did require some finesse, it was still just BARELY C2 by definition. It was entirely possible to make one marginal placement above the cracked pin and then high step to the good cam. Any additional marginal placements were only needed if you refused to step high in your ladders--I rope soloed that pitch as my 4th aid pitch EVER and found it to be fun and a great introduction. 

I don't really see a safety argument either, as there are plenty of accounts of people falling on the cracked pin in recent years (plus a fall there is pretty avoidable, the marginal placement was very secure as these things go), and there already was a glue-in right below that--again, as these things go, a pretty clean fall. If the pin did pull on it's own, it seems much more in the spirit of wall climbing to at least let someone attempt a true A grade placement rather than smearing glue all over the pin scar.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe somebody whipped, and their gear carved out perfect placements on the way down, before the cracked pin sheared and they shattered their legs. I don't know. 

Wow, this is possibly the route that sees the most traffic in Zion. The main question here is:

Was someone "taking liberties" by adding bolts or enhancing placements?

I think most would agree that these two things are unacceptable.

Fixed pins have the tendency to loosen in sandstone. Such placements on popular routes often evolve into a glue reinforced fixed pin in an effort to stabilize the placement and prevent continued degradation of the rock. This is a common practice in Zion and other sandstone locations.

Ron Olevsky advocated cleaning pins in such a way as to eventually create a good nut placement, allowing the route to eventually go hammerless. This approach is an effort to preserve the routes as much as possible.

Replacing drilled angles with glue-in bolts is absolutely appropriate! You slam 5/8" pins into 1/2" holes and equate that to a bolt??? You do that because you are poor and you are using a hand drill and you can't drill a hole clean enough to take a regular bolt in shitty soft sandstone . . .

However, Touchstone should long ago have stabilized for clean aid. I climbed that thing 25 years ago, all clean.

Were some of these "enhancements" done to facilitate free climbing attempts? That might explain a lot, though it doesn't excuse much.

Rich Ludwigwrote:

Fixed pins have the tendency to loosen in sandstone. Such placements on popular routes often evolve into a glue reinforced fixed pin in an effort to stabilize the placement and prevent continued degradation of the rock. This is a common practice in Zion and other sandstone locations.

Yes, absolutely--but the pin that is glued in is what I would consider a botch job. And if the cracked pin did pull--which I think would have been mentioned--I know myself and many others would be interested in trying to finagle a clean aid path through the scar rather than just clip through scab of glue there. Additionally, amateur forensics seems to point to this being premeditated, as the added bolt(s), the replaced anchors, and the pin in the roof all have the same adhesive type (distinct from the older glue-ins on the route)...

Replacing drilled angles with glue-in bolts is absolutely appropriate! You slam 5/8" pins into 1/2" holes and equate that to a bolt??? You do that because you are poor and you are using a hand drill and you can't drill a hole clean enough to take a regular bolt in shitty soft sandstone . . .

Agreed absolutely--if the pins need to be replaced. But preemptively pulling perfectly good pin anchors to add glue ins seems questionable, imo.

However, Touchstone should long ago have stabilized for clean aid. I climbed that thing 25 years ago, all clean.

Exactly.

 I climbed it few months ago, which is why I am 100 percent confident that most of these modifications are intentional rather than gradual changes over time. It was already the single easiest wall I've ever sent or attempted and now it's, somehow, easier.

Were some of these "enhancements" done to facilitate free climbing attempts? That might explain a lot, though it doesn't excuse much.

This explanation occurred to us, but I didn't want to speculate. 

RIP Piton Ron

“In late spring 1981 I completed the second solo ascent (seventh overall) of Cerberus by the same route with the distinction of being completely without a hammer. This ascent was the result of extensive effort on the route using constructive scarring technique. I had prefixed and even glued in situ pitons in the initial section of the climb to deter the devastating results of continued hammering on the soft rock. In the process of this, it was very disheartening to note that other climbers had placed pitons very heavy handedly in places where originally chocks were used. Most of the two-hundred-meter crack was relatively straightforward without pitons, and of course the tree pitch didn’t require a hammer. I had even found a better rappel route that would avoid leaving unsightly rappel slings on the wall.”

https://publications.americanalpineclub.org/articles/12198500100/The-Touchstone-Wall

If true this is really disappointing -- I led the first two pitches a while back and learned a lot as a total aid gumby. The flexing pin was part of the experience! That and the big ol' whip I took on a small nut above that. I had hoped to go back at some point and do the whole thing, and I probably still will but I'm glad I got to do the first bits before this alteration.

Rich Ludwigwrote:

However, Touchstone should long ago have stabilized for clean aid. I climbed that thing 25 years ago, all clean.

This is not the case AT ALL on Zion trade routes.  Placements get continually more and more blown out.   I climbed there a fair bit over a fairly long period of time and can recall the trade routes changing significantly in that time.   

In the case of Touchstone, Ron Olevsky modified the rock when he developed the climb in an effort to make it more sustainable and I recall that he went back and "improved" the the second pitch at a minimum maybe fifteen years ago?   Seems to me someone is carrying on that legacy.   

A trade route degrading into blown out pods and bad pins is dumb.  Increasing amounts of fixed gear on these routes, because they're worn down due to soft rock and popularity is inevitable.   Looks to me like someone did a pretty good jump there.   If you need greater challenge jump on something obscure or actually hard that sees little traffic. 

Interesting read here. I did Touchstone about 30 years ago with Ron O. It was very straight forward with lots of stoppers and regular cams (no offsets of any kind, all clean, and no maintenance performed). I have no real idea about how traffic wears the placements, since  I have never repeated any of the desert routes I have done.

 Maybe, except for fixed anchor/placement maintenance, they should just be allowed to wear out. What rule is there stating a climb should be doable forever? Or maybe gear evolution will allow routes that become hard or impossible to again be climbed by the masses. It seems ok to me to allow climbs, especially a great "little" wall route such as Tombstone, to retain their own dignity. 

I wonder what Ron would say? 

Time for some bolts? Time for a new aid gear? 

How blown out would it have to be before you considered change? 

grug gwrote:

Time for some bolts? Time for a new aid gear? 

How blown out would it have to be before you considered change? 

Is this directed at me ? If so:

It's not up to me. The only route maintenance I have done has been mostly on granite, a bit on limestone. Limited to belay anchor bolts and anchor or lead protection fixed pins. I think there are worthy considerations beyond just making a route climbable NOW or just making it "safe" NOW. So I presented an idea or two. 

I have never altered a climb from the condition I found it in to make it easier. I have either figured out how to do it, or retreated.

 Except for cutting steps in snow or ice.

grug gwrote:

How blown out would it have to be before you considered change? 

It wasn't blown out before the alterations, to be clear. Aid novices (including myself) were routinely sending.

The crux, such as it was, in sequence:

1. a slung broken pin--which held multiple falls over the years and may have taken clean gear if pulled--I'd at least have liked to try, personally. This is now a glued pin

2. A 2-3 lobe totem placement (that multiple people did with a scary C4 or large tricam, if we're considering totems too specialized for some reason). This is now a bomber totem or C4--willing to admit this one might just be natural wear but WHOOO BOY do I doubt it.

3. A wonky placement that was completely skippable by high stepping the totem to a bomber C1 cam. This is now a chiseled nut placement

To say nothing of the bolts added on P1. And I may have missed some stuff, and I can't speak to any more modifications higher besides anchors. The only reason I am 100% confident of the above is that I had occasion to do the route in late fall and again in February.

It's whatever at this point--but this wasn't "resetting" mandatory placements or fixing blowouts as sometimes happens on soft sandstone. 

grug gwrote:

Time for some bolts? Time for a new aid gear? 

How blown out would it have to be before you considered change? 

The more worn purchase gets. The more it will accept better gear. So no, bolts are highly unlikely.

Just an interesting historical note from the Ron Olveskys AAJ write up on the FA.  The Touchstone Wall.  I guess my point is this maybe the last climb where modifications would be controversial. Apparently he wrote an entire essay on constructive scaring published in Mountain #95.  Would be interesting to track down.

"Postscript

In late spring 1981 I completed the second solo ascent (seventh overall) of Cerberus by the same route with the distinction of being completely without a hammer. This ascent was the result of extensive effort on the route using constructive scarring technique. I had prefixed and even glued in situ pitons in the initial section of the climb to deter the devastating results of continued hammering on the soft rock."

Sidenote: I once met Ron Olvesky in that cute little diner in Moab before the town was completely overrun.  A friend and I had just completed an ascent of the Sundevil chimney.  This was after it had been done clean and shortly after Stevey Haston had free'd it.   He was fairly terse and only wanted to know if we had done it clean.  We had not.  On one of the "A4" pitches I had placed an angle (or two?) in empty drill-angle holes.  Our justification was the pins had probably been removed to serve as finger pockets.  Ron was not impressed.

I climbed touchstone about 8 yrs ago, so maybe my memory is off. Here’s what I remember: you follow a bolt/pin ladder to a splitter. The aid crux is completely contrived. There’s about 40 drilled pins beneath you. It’s only the crux because one pin was wiggly or fell out or some shit. The splitters is incredible. Am I forgetting something? 

Creed Archibaldwrote:

I climbed touchstone about 8 yrs ago, so maybe my memory is off. Here’s what I remember: you follow a bolt/pin ladder to a splitter. The aid crux is completely contrived. There’s about 40 drilled pins beneath you. It’s only the crux because one pin was wiggly or fell out or some shit. The splitters is incredible. Am I forgetting something? 

You're missing some details, but basically yeah.

The "crux" was just one cracked pin over a bomber glue in, then a single C2ish placement. 

Most of the drilled pins below had already been replaced.

Jack Kellywrote:

Edited the title because I've calmed down a bit.

I am fully prepared to be in the wrong here--

I went up the first couple pitches of Touchstone yesterday to help a friend learn how to aid climb--someone has monkeyed up the second pitch. It's no longer C2--and it was already barely C2. 

Changes I noticed: 

1. There is now a glue-in in the middle of the C1 cracks on P1 (which previously required a reachy move between C1 placements or a single marginal placement).

2. The cracked pin is gone--in its place is a glued angle with a 6 inch smear of glue in the scar--see picture.

3. The first placement above the pin has been enhanced--what used to be a marginal orange totem or a tricam is now a textbook orange totem. A C4 might have also worked in the new pod, but I didn't have one on me. This one may have naturally weathered open a little, but it's certainly suspect. See picture.

4. Another placement has been chiseled out above this one--this used to be a marginal offset cam, nut, or tricam OR a high step reach to the red cam placement that marked the end of the 8 whole feet of C2 on this entire climb. This is now a chiseled slot that perfectly holds a nut and probably could hold a small cam. See picture.

5. The drilled pin anchors have been replaced with glue in bolts up to P6 (we descended after P2, but a friend had gone up the day before). This one might be considered more justifiable, but I found the pin anchors to be part of the appeal of the route.

Changes I can't swear to--

6. There's a bolt low on the "sport pitch." I don't remember there being a bolt there, only pitons, but I could be misremembering. If a bolt has been added, I don't know if it was in addition to or in place of one of the pins.

7. There seemed to be one too many bolts on the P2 traverse before the bolt--I didn't pay enough attention to that until I saw the modifications to the crux, but there was a glue-in ~12 inches below a pin halfway through the traverse, which struck me as odd whilst leading.

8. This may be my paranoia setting in, but looking up from the P2 anchors, I thought there was what looked like some hammer marks in and around the crack heading up--again, I fully admit that this point may be off-base.

Now, I'm totally willing to be told I'm wrong about this. I am not the most experienced wall climber--though I have rope soloed touchstone twice, most recently last fall--along with most of the other trade routes in Zion and a handful of walls in Yosemite), nor am I local to Zion (though I'd reckon Vegas is "more local" to Zion than MOST who climb there): the modifications to P1 and P2 seem egregious and needless.

The new bolt on P1 is laughable. The aid there is not particularly hard and the fall would be clean and low consequence, relatively speaking. Same for the changes on P2--while that section did require some finesse, it was still just BARELY C2 by definition. It was entirely possible to make one marginal placement above the cracked pin and then high step to the good cam. Any additional marginal placements were only needed if you refused to step high in your ladders--I rope soloed that pitch as my 4th aid pitch EVER and found it to be fun and a great introduction. 

I don't really see a safety argument either, as there are plenty of accounts of people falling on the cracked pin in recent years (plus a fall there is pretty avoidable, the marginal placement was very secure as these things go), and there already was a glue-in right below that--again, as these things go, a pretty clean fall. If the pin did pull on it's own, it seems much more in the spirit of wall climbing to at least let someone attempt a true A grade placement rather than smearing glue all over the pin scar.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe somebody whipped, and their gear carved out perfect placements on the way down, before the cracked pin sheared and they shattered their legs. I don't know. 

#2, cracked pin, are you referring to the cracked rurp above the roof on pitch 2?

GNNwrote:

#2, cracked pin, are you referring to the cracked rurp above the roof on pitch 2?

Not the rurp, a cracked angle (nearly identical to the glued angle pictured). The top fold was cracked before the eye (it was still bomber with a sling behind the eye and a keeper biner).

The modification of the lower pitches is for sure a shame, but I will say I was happy to see some glue-ins placed on the anchors on the first 5 pitches. Some of the drilled pin anchors on the upper pitches (specifically pitch 6) are total garbage, and could benefit greatly from a single good bolt or replacing a drilled pin with a glue in. I specifically remember weighting the anchor on top of pitch 6 and watching both pins flex up and down in their holes. I feel that on a trade route this is pretty unacceptable. It could absolutely kill a party who decides to haul (which I have heard of happening on this route, look at the ticks). Maybe with community consensus we could add a bolt just to that anchor? Id be willing to pay for the bolt...